[Doylo]

I am aware that repeaters work both strength and power endurance but what proportion of each would people say. Would guess 70 strength 30 PE ??

[lmarenzi]

Might be interesting to look at how weight lifters look at this sort of thing, since that is the sport most would associate with "strength".

In lifting your aim is to increase most you can lift, your so called 1 repetition maximum. To increase this you would reduce the load (there are plenty of tables to convert) and increase your reps. Lets say your 1 rep max was 100. You would go down to 90 kg and work on being able to do 5 reps. Then perhaps 95 kg 3 reps. Then 2 reps at 98 kg and then, maybe the following week, a 1 rep max at 101 kg, and then back to 92 kg for 5 reps and so on.

So your classic 7s on/3s off 6 times for repeaters looks a lot like a 6 rep max workout, where one rep is hanging off an edge for 7 seconds. It's a lot of reps for pure strength work, but it's still strength work. So I would say the superficial answer to your question would be 100% strength. What do you mean by "repeaters" though? If you are doing 5 sets of the minute above with only limited rest between then this becomes endurance training, where you could start training 100 % endurance. Since strength and endurance are contradictory goals I would be surprised if one exercise like repeaters would be capable of building both at the same time. Rather I would expect you to build one at the expense of the other, although hopefully the gain outweighs the expense to increase your overall climbing performance.

In your particular case though it would be easy to measure the effect on both max strength and endurance of a cycle of repeaters by doing a before/after comparison of 1. what the most weight is you can hang off the edge for 7 s for, and 2. how long you can hold that edge for (or even assisted movements between such edges). The problem with both these tests is that they are less sport specific than the original repeaters.

I feel a bit foolish writing all this as I don't lift weights and don't climb hard either, but there you go.

[douglas]

I would say it's well into pe rather then strength. It's 42 seconds of work spread over a minute. Anabolic exercise is considered 30 s of work. It's a 400m race rather than 100m. Bear in mind though that this is isometric contraction which changes things slightly but I think not much.

Certainly my experience of repeaters is that I get utterly boxed rather than feel I'm pulling hard at all.

[abarro81]

Depends on
1. How many hangs per set (i.e. the 'normal 6 or 7 or whatever it is or less than this)
2. How much rest between reps
3. Intensity

Anyway, the structure Varian talks about always seems to me to be something like long an cap (or 'short resistance' if you're a Spaniard). If I ever do them I just do 4 hangs per set, rest time = 2-3 times work time. That structures it more like normal an cap. Though to be fair I mainly do it like that just because then I know what to write it up as in my training diary!

Since strength and endurance are contradictory goals I would be surprised if one exercise like repeaters would be capable of building both at the same time.

Strength and anaerobic capacity are not contradictory goals, and a suitably formulated repeaters session should be able to build both at the same time IMO.

[mrjonathanr]

7:3 is basically a 2:1 ratio which is what a 'tabata' is:
http://www.primalbritain.co.uk/tabata-protocol/

[abarro81]

If I ever do them I just do 4 hangs per set, rest time = 2-3 times work time.

For clarity, I mean rest time between sets = 2-3 times total time of set. e.g. for 4 hang set, rest might be 1min30

[Tommy]

Depends on
1. How many hangs per set (i.e. the 'normal 6 or 7 or whatever it is or less than this)
2. How much rest between reps
3. Intensity

Strength and anaerobic capacity are not contradictory goals, and a suitably formulated repeaters session should be able to build both at the same time IMO.

Yup, I'd agree with Alex that strength and AnCap training are not contradictory in their results. Both will get you stronger in my experience, although obviously they have slightly different outcomes in terms of performance profile.

I've tried the repeater method, Lopez method and my own method over the last 18 months and all have brought gains in strength.... but each has it's small loop hole I guess!

[Tommy]

I am aware that repeaters work both strength and power endurance but what proportion of each would people say. Would guess 70 strength 30 PE ??

In answer to this, it's kind of hard to say as in basic terms one is a measure of force and the other an efficiency of an energy system. You could work out (not easily) what the proportion of aerobic-anaerobic is used in repeaters or the %recruitment of slow twitch vs fast twitch. What you'd do with that info is anyone's guess 

[TobyD]

Depends on
1. How many hangs per set (i.e. the 'normal 6 or 7 or whatever it is or less than this)
2. How much rest between reps
3. Intensity
Strength and anaerobic capacity are not contradictory goals, and a suitably formulated repeaters session should be able to build both at the same time IMO.

Yup, I'd agree with Alex that strength and AnCap training are not contradictory in their results. Both will get you stronger in my experience, although obviously they have slightly different outcomes in terms of performance profile.

I'd agree with that too. I have generally tended to mostly go for a session of 7son 3soff; 7 hang set / 2-3 min rest / 6-10 sets. It seems that this has transferred mostly to PE, rather than power.

[Doylo]

Cheers for the replies. I guess there's no clear answer and it depends on exactly what you do.

[petejh]

I prefer to keep things simple - I work strength and PE in isolation (or as close to isolation as possible). I'm a believer that if you compromise between two different goals you'll naturally gravitate toward working the one you're already strongest at. I find I can train strength for long periods, with slow gains, and I remain relatively strong for the route grade I climb for a long time; whereas I respond to PE training very quickly and make big gains within 2 - 3 weeks of intense work, and then I lose it just as quickly. I hate the feeling of getting pumped and I strongly dislike training it, but I make rapid big gains when I do.

As an aside, it doesn't help the cause of finding simple effective routines when there's at least 4 commonly used languages for training - PE/Strength Endurance/AnCap/Resistance. A bit like programming languages everyone will tell you there's is best. May as well choose one set of terminology that strikes a chord with you and stick to that without worrying too much what language others are using. Of course I'm open to anything I think might be useful, just there seems way too much choice to be able to choose and it's all variations on the same themes.

[abarro81]

I think 'PE' (= 'strength endurance' = generic 'resistance') doesn't accurately describe the different aspects you want to train.
Better to break it up Spanish style (short resistance, long resistance, continuity) or energy system style (an cap, an pow, aero pow, aero cap). I favour the second and have seen really good results from structuring my training around it, that's just my favourite programming language though. However, there's no point in breaking it up how I favour unless you're down with stopwatches, geekery, at least some level of periodisation, pain and boredom.

[petejh]

Totally agree with breaking up PE into short/mid/long - I just do it in my head and train either high intensity, mid intensity (usually when just starting a cycle to break into it) or slightly longer duration slightly lower intensity on the foot-on campussing, depending on the style of the goal route or routes. All PE to me!, but I could call it 'ZQK' for all it matters, it's all just variations on a set time-versus a set intensity. Well into geekery and stopwatches.